Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Benjamin Boteler
Ecologic Institute
benjamin.boteler@ecologic.eu
European maritime transport and port activities: identifying policy
gaps towards reducing environmental impacts of socio-economic
activities
materials and the import and export of goods to and throughout Europe. However, the
European shipping and ports sectors cause multiple pressures on the marine and coastal
environment [1-3]. Environmental pressures include abrasion (impact with the seabed),
compounds, smothering and sealing, marine litter, and underwater noise. At the same
time other socio-economic activities (e.g. fisheries, energy production, recreation and
port activities combined with other socio-economic activities can result in hotspots for
impacts on socio-economic activities which depend on the goods and services provided
ecosystems, European legislators have adopted policy responses. In 2008, the European
Union (EU) introduced the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) to protect
and conserve the marine environment and is the environmental component of its marine
water strategy set forth in the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). In addition to
also work to protect marine environments and support sustainable activities. Despite
efforts to reduce environmental pressures through legislation, multiple pressures on the
environment created by the maritime transport and ports sector are currently not
socio-economic pressures with ecosystem dynamics is also a goal of the research and
reports of the European Environment Agency (EEA) [8] within the work of the
European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine waters (ETC-ICM) and European
Topic Centre for Spatial Information Analysis. A number of research actions, such as
approach and the link between anthropogenic and ecosystem dynamics to support policy
decisions.
and ports and 3) provide an overview of relevant policy, as well as highlight 4) hotspots
where environmental pressures may be most significant and 5) the current state of the
European shipping and ports. The second section provides a look at the full spectrum of
environmental pressures which result from maritime shipping and ports, as well as
and regional initiatives. Finally, a conclusion is provided to highlight key messages and
Maritime regions account for an estimated 40 % of the EUs GDP while the maritime
economy represents 3 to 5 % of the EUs GDP [9]1. At the same time, increasing
trade in tonne kilometres [11]. In 2010, the EU 272 shipping industry contributed about
EUR 26 billion added value to the economy, which equated to about 26 % of the value
added generated by maritime activities [12]. Moreover, shipping is the largest European
maritime sector with an estimated 10 000 companies forming the European market [13]
making the EU the world leader in shipping with over 9000 merchant ships under EU
flags and an additional 4000 vessels flying foreign flags [9]. In the EU 27 plus Norway,
it is estimated that 254 1193 seafarers4 are employed in sea transport for 2010 [14].
1
EC, 2008 does not define maritime region.
2
Excluding Bulgaria.
3
It should be noted that it is extremely difficult to provide exact numbers for employment in the EU 27 shipping
industry because of several of the industrys characteristics. This is due to a number of factors such as flag and
registration status of ships, a lack of clarity over ship ownership and a lack of systematic data collection at a
European level. Moreover, many European vessels sail between continents outside of Europe, using foreign
trade with developing economies (i.e. China) have contributed to significant increases in
both the import and export of raw materials and commodities. This resulted in
unprecedented growth in shipping and its supporting industries [13]. While the global
financial crisis led to a momentary substantial decline in economic growth and therefore
production, trade and shipping activities, European ports (gross weight of seaborne
goods handled in European ports) for 2011shows that shipping activities are rising [15].
handled) averaged around 2.3 % between 1995 and 2008 (averaging 3.6 % between
2003 and 2006) [16]. Coinciding with the global financial crisis, shipping fell by 12 %
in 2009 (to 3.4 billion tonnes) reaching levels similar to those in 2003 [17].
Nevertheless, statistics show that, for 2010, the shipping and ports sectors have begun to
make a clear recovery as weight of goods handled climbed to levels comparable to 2005
transported goods, i.e. 1.9 billion tonnes of freight in 2009 [18]. Short Sea Shipping
experienced a similar impact to the 2008 financial crisis as overall shipping in the EU
[18]. Based on the gross weight of goods transported, 29.7 % of Short Sea Shipping
occurred in the Mediterranean, followed by 26.4 % in the North Sea. The Baltic Sea
followed on third rank, and experienced a 19.6%, while other regions such as the
Atlantic Ocean (13.8 %) and the Black Sea (6.2 %) were less prevalent [19], see Figure
5
According to Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union), Short Sea Shipping is defined as the
Movement of cargo by sea between ports situated in Europe as well as between ports in Europe and ports
situated in non-European countries having a coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe.
1 below. This shows the concentration of shipping activities in the Mediterranean and
Figure 1 EU-27 Short Sea Shipping of goods by sea region of partner ports in
In
the Mediterranean, transport has been steadily growing, with a significant rise of 50 %
between 1997 and 2006, mainly due to increased flows of energy products. The
between 1997 and 2009, with growth being most significant between 2002 and 2008,
before falling in 2009 due to the global financial crisis [21]. The three largest EU ports
in terms of both gross weight of goods and volume of containers handled were
Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg, all located on the North Sea coast [21].
It is estimated that the EU shipping industry will create an added value of EUR
30 billion in 2020 and EUR 36 billion in 2030 [12]. Industry forecasts until 2050 predict
high growth rates for shipping, including both extra and intra-EU shipping at 150 % and
and globalisation trends, as well as weak decoupling of economic and transport activity.
transport even more economically viable, while at the same time other modes of
transport are likely to become more congested (i.e. road and rail), making them less
economically viable. This may be especially important in the case of Short Sea
Shipping [23]. In economic terms, the impact of transportation costs is becoming less
important because the unit value of goods transported is increasing (i.e. the ratio value-
to-weight of goods transport is growing) [23].Therefore, even under high oil price
scenarios, shipping will continue to grow and as such, environmental pressures from
especially when compared to road and air alternatives, and is therefore often supported
by government initiatives (e.g. Motorways of the Sea). However, shipping and port
activities exert pressure on the marine and coastal environment and there is an
increasing interest across different levels of government to address these issues. This
section aims to provide a broad overview of environmental pressures and is divided into
two sections, operational pressures and impacts and accidental pressures and impacts.
3.1 Operational pressures from maritime transport and ports
Operational pressures and impacts result from the sustained activities of the maritime
transport and port sectors and are therefore often relatively well known. The
subheadings used in this section are according to the pressures and impacts identified in
Abrasion
Ship anchoring and shading, when vessels sit for extended periods of time in one place,
may have adverse affects on the marine environment. Though research conducted on
these activities is limited, and completely lacking for commercial vessels, indications
show that sensitive sea floors (e.g. sea grasses) are damaged from boat anchoring, by
including by uprooting plants, which can lead to reduced shoot density and sea bed
cover [1]. Therefore, anchoring poses a threat to seabed habitats and the species that
depend on them. It could be assumed that anchoring by commercial vessels would have
larger impacts than that of recreational or leisure activities, strictly due to the increased
size of the anchor [1]. In addition, designated anchoring grounds such as in and around
ports and harbours are likely to experience increased cumulative impacts from
anchoring [1]. These may also include established areas for bunkering, ship to ship
cargo transfers, or waiting grounds for ports. Additionally, ships spending long periods
of time in ports and harbours (e.g. for long-term repairs or dismantling) increase the
shade cover (i.e. reduce the exposure to the sun) of benthic biota underneath the vessel.
Though research is limited, Struck et al. 2004 identified significantly lower abundance
and diversity of estuarine macro invertebrates under low bridges, suggesting that ships
lead to nutrient and organic matter enrichment. The amount of sewage produced on
board ships ranges, depending on the type of ship, with the most being produced on
passenger and cruise ships [2]. High concentrations of faecal coliform bacteria pose a
significant risk to human health and can require bathing areas to be closed [1].
transported in the ballast of ships (i.e. the sediments carried in water), and are then
introduced into new marine environments when a ship discharges water [25]. Along
European coasts, over 1000 non-indigenous aquatic species have been identified [26].
The risk from invasive species is associated with the amount of water transported, the
frequency of ship visits and the similarity of environmental conditions for a species
[27]. The number one path for the introduction of alien aquatic species in Europe is
through vessels, followed closely by canals and to a lesser degree aquaculture [25].
reducing the value of land and water for human activities [25] The result is that
introduced alien species have harmful social (including health) and economic impacts
[28, 29].
exhaust from other on-board operations such as incinerators and cooling installations.
The main pollutants are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx) as well as
carbon dioxide (CO2) [2] and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are mainly
produced during tanker loading in ports [30]. NOx emissions greatly contribute to
eutrophication and SOx causes acidification of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems [2].
Eutrophication in marine waters can have significant effects on marine ecosystems and
human health, thus impacting socio-economic activities such as fishing, tourism and
leisure activities, by contributing to harmful algal blooms, murky waters, loss of aquatic
vegetation and lifeless zones on the sea floor [2]. Furthermore, NOx, SOx and CO2
contribute significantly to global climate change [2]. In 2008, total greenhouse gas
emissions from maritime transport for the EU 27 were estimated at 192.7 million tonnes
CO2 equivalent [31]. In European marine regions, the majority of ship emissions come
from large cargo ships with over 500 gross register tonnages. Of emissions in EU areas,
around 20 % are released within 12 miles of the coastline and about 45 % stem from
Oil spills which result from daily operations may be considered small when
compared to, for example, spills caused by shipping accidents; however, they are also
repetitive and may concentrate in ports and along shipping routes. Therefore, these
spills will impact local marine habitats, including physical disturbances, toxic inputs to
sensitive species and organic enrichment to sediments. Ships of all kinds discharge oily
residues into water under normal daily operations. In addition, they must clean their
ballast and bilge water tanks, which results in considerable pollution [20]. The impact of
oil and toxic substances on the environment depends on the size of the spill and the type
of oil or substance as well as weather conditions, location and a number of other factors
[2]. Operational oil spills pose a serious threat to the environment, especially because
attention and mitigation measures tend to be focused on accidental spills, which can be
highly visible and intense [1]. Globally, most oil spills are the result of routine
operations, most often occurring in oil or port terminals [1]. Indeed, the International
Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF) reports that small and medium
sized spills account for 95 % of all the incidents recorded. Of these, a large percentage,
used for several decades, and their toxic effects are widely recognised and discussed [1].
Antifouling paints are based on tributyltin (TBT), which is highly toxic for marine
organisms [33]. TBT is often found in high concentrations in areas such as ports and
concentrations in marine species: molluscs are very sensitive to the chemical, while it
also accumulates in the tissue of top predators such as bottlenose dolphin, blue fin tuna
Marine litter
The intentional, illegal or accidental disposal of waste and discharge of sewage into
marine ecosystems can have severe effects on marine life and water quality
deterioration [1]. Although land based sources of waste and sewage are significant,
shipping is considered a major source of marine inputs. The most damaging form of
marine waste is considered plastics, which makes up to 80 % of all marine debris [1].
Plastic bottles and particles can lead to the death of marine species (e.g. especially fish
catching birds) [2]. Waste can also have consequences on the entire food web by
entering and accumulating in animals such as mussels [2]. Moreover, marine plastics
can have significant economic costs, for instance on tourism through fouled beaches and
litter removal; on fishing through contaminated catches, restricted catch or damaged
because of fouled facilities, vessel damage; and to coastal agriculture due to damaged
Sealing
Port construction and expansion of port facilities involves land reclamation and land use
smothering coastal land as well as the destruction of marine and terrestrial habitats. It
may also involve the filling of wetlands to acquire land for port development. Port
construction can greatly contribute to the fragmentation of natural habitats along coasts
and therefore threaten beach dwelling species. The construction of marinas, breakwaters
and shoreline developments can also cause changes in a currents sediment supply and
Changes in siltation
Dredged materials are categorised as mud and silts or sand and gravel, and often contain
some form of contamination such as heavy metals or oil. Materials are either disposed at
sea or used for beach nourishment [36]. Dredging can mobilise contaminated materials,
such as TBT, which are often locked in sediment over extended periods of time.
Disturbing the contaminated materials can pose threats, depending on the amount of
contamination, to the environment and water quality in port areas and shipping channels
[37].
Underwater noise
Ships are a dominant source of low frequency noise in coastal zones with high vessel
traffic [27]. Noise pollution from ships can be wide reaching and can impact fish
behaviour by distracting them and impairing their ability to retrieve vital information
from reef noises. Underwater noise can also influence the predator-prey relationship,
hindering prey from detecting and avoiding predators [38]. However, noise may also
restrict predators that use sound for hunting [38]. Exposure to artificial noise hinders
specifically juvenile fish, from finding suitable habitats and protection, making them
more susceptible to predators and other threats [39]. At the same time, research suggests
that exposure to noise can cause stress in fish and potentially influence reproduction
[40]. There is also increasing concern that noise from shipping puts increased pressure
background marine noise has doubled each decade since the 1950s in some areas due to
the development of faster and larger ships alongside an increase in vessel traffic [27].
unanticipated incidents. Thus, ship and port procedures and regulations, often regarding
safety, are intrinsically linked to marine water pollution. Planning and legislation can
help to avoid accidents and prepare for the timely mitigation of the impacts of accidents,
while improving education, training and employee procedures also plays a role.
increase the chances of oil spills and leaks [2] as well as the loss of other substances,
whether liquid, solid or gas. Most polluting accidents (which may be extremely small)
occur in ports during mooring, loading and unloading operations [20] and cause
localised impacts and disturbances. In the Baltic Sea area, there were about 120-140
shipping accidents in 2009, which has increased since 2006 due to a 20 % rise in vessel
traffic. This growth illustrates the relationship between transport intensity and
environmental pressures. The number as well as size of oil spills in the Baltic Sea has
decreased considerably from 763 spills in 1989 to 178 spills in 2009, with no major
spills occurring since 2006 [2]. In the Mediterranean, the majority of shipping accidents
occurs in the eastern region due to the many islands in the area [20]. Shipping accidents
measures are taken to reduce shipping accidents and their environmental impacts.
The MSFD separates European waters into four regions: the North-East Atlantic, the
Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and each of these regions have
Spatial considerations
The multiple marine waters of Europe and its Member States require that shipping and
port activities are considered in regard to spatial characteristics and potential conflicts
with nature. For example, in areas of high vessel traffic, such as the Mediterranean Sea,
high levels of background noise plays a significant role in collisions with marine
animals. It is reported that the majority of accidents (e.g. 76.6% in the Mediterranean
Sea) with whales and dolphins occur during the summer months, when these animals
congregate in feeding grounds that align with the areas where vessel traffic is the
highest [1]. Marine animals may be injured or killed due to accidental impact with
shipping vessels or propellers. Noise levels can make it difficult for marine animals,
such as whales, to communicate with one another or receive acoustic cues, therefore
based activities and creates hotspots of environmental impact. The North East Atlantic,
for example, including the North Sea, is highly relevant for European trade and shipping
[27]. The region is also central to a number of other socio-economic activities, such as
fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, bio prospecting and oil and gas. More recently the
offshore wind energy industry is gaining as a significant and growing sector in the
region. Offshore wind capacity in Europe is expected to grow by 17 fold between 2010
and 2020 [40]. The growth in offshore wind energy in the North East Atlantic suggests
that planning tools and environmental policy will need to consider shipping and
offshore wind energy in a combined manner. This is needed, not only to address
potential disputes over the use of marine space (i.e. wind farm locations and shipping
routes), but also because growth in offshore wind energy and shipping suggests that
increase. For example, both offshore wind energy production [41] and shipping vessels
are a source of underwater noise [1]. Increased underwater noise from both activities
leads to greater cumulative impacts on the ecosystem, e.g. fish behaviour, which may
emissions, and is intensified through cumulative activities. Algal foam is caused by the
waves and ocean water which can be amplified by oil discharges from ships as well as
shipping activities are concentrated along shipping routes as well as near port areas. For
example, high concentrations of NO2 emissions are along narrow straights and channels
of shipping routes such as through the Strait of Gibraltar and the English Channel.
Figure 2 below shows European shipping routes and concentrations of NO2, which is
also the result of land-based activities. In the Baltic Sea, for example, eutrophication
such as tourism [2]. The ocean turns a red or green colour (depending on the kind of
algae) which can be unpleasant to see and smell for tourists and local residents as well
as pose risks to human health. Ultimately, swimming needs to be banned when an algal
boom is present. On the Swedish island of land, it was estimated that algal blooms
Cumulative pressures arise when spatial aspects, i.e. location, and environmental
pressures from several activities align. The results of cumulative pressures can impact
governance are used to regulate the sectors. Thus a mix of agreements, conventions,
policies, and regulations exist across different levels which manage the sectors. The
following section aims to identify policy gaps and therefore also highlights the most
relevant governing mechanisms for the European waters, and focuses on international
responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine
pollution from ships. The IMOs MARPOL Convention is the main international
different forms of marine pollution; oil (Annex I), noxious liquid substance carried in
bulk (Annex II), harmful substances carried in packaged form (Annex III), sewage
(Annex IV), garbage (Annex V) and air pollution (Annex VI) [43].
prevention of marine pollution from ships. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC) entered into force in 1975, and
in 1996 the London Protocol was adopted. This latter convention prohibits the dumping
of certain hazardous materials, and requires permits for the dumping of a number of
other identified materials. Annex 4 of the convention provides a list of exempt materials
[44]. The Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS
Convention) which came into force in 2008 bans the use of TBT paints on ships. It was
transposed into EU legislation as EC No 782/2003 [45] and, consequently, all ships that
have TBT antifouling paints are banned from entering EU ports [46]. EU Directive
95/21/EC establishes procedures for ports to enforce the ban within the jurisdiction of
Member States [47]. Furthermore, the IMO convention for the control and Management
of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) was completed in 2004, but
as of this writing has not yet entered into force [48]. The IMO has also adopted
regulations regarding the energy efficiency of shipping vessels, namely the Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), to reduce emissions from ships [49]. However, this
shipping, and the effects will only be seen after 2019 [50]. Even though the IMO sets
out a number of standards, are not sufficient to protect the environment. Furthermore,
they show severe gaps, especially in terms of GHG emissions, underwater noise and
abrasion or shading.
measures targeted towards shipping and port activities. These include the Oslo Paris
Convention (OSPAR) which is the mechanism to protect the marine environment of the
North-East Atlantic [51] and the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) which works to
protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea [52]. Further regional initiatives
include the Barcelona Convention which aims to protect the environment and to foster
sustainable development in the Mediterranean basin [53] and the Bucharest Convention
which works to protect the Black Sea Marine Environment [54]. Regional conventions
adopts further standards and policies relevant to the shipping and ports sector. The
Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) is the EUs overarching maritime policy which
ecosystem based management [55]. The MSFD constitutes the vital environmental
component of the EUs IMP. The MSFD aims to reduce the pressures of human
regulatory framework requiring that environmental targets are met in an effort to obtain
GES, defined as the environmental status of marine waters where these provide
ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and
productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at
a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by
current and future generations (...) [24]. Key planning instruments are Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) [56] and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) [9],
which seek to provide a stable planning framework for coastal and maritime activities,
and include considerations for environmental aspects such as marine protected areas.
anthropogenic dynamics within an ecosystem [5]. The Driver Pressure State Impact and
organise information about the state of the environment and requires that sectors, or
data, are considered in terms of cause and effect relationships. By applying this concept,
impacts, and may ultimately impact socio-economic activities. Links between pieces of
information are provided, and with them the consequences of actions can be determined
[58].
1 Driving forces
Socio-economic and
socio-cultural forces
driving human
activities, which
increase or mitigate 2 Pressures
5 Responses Stresses that human
pressures on thee
Responses by society to the activities place on the
environment
environmental situation environment (e.g.
(e.g. regulations) marine litter)
environmental protection and are therefore relevant to the shipping and port sector. The
Biodiversity Strategy, published in May 2011, seeks to halt biodiversity loss in Europe.
Targets included in the strategy are: maintaining and enhancing ecosystems and their
services; ensuring the sustainability of fisheries, combating invasive alien species; and
addressing the global biodiversity crisis [59]. The EU Waste Framework Directive
comes into play regarding the disposal of dredged materials, and dictates that materials
should first be re-used, and if this is not possible they should be recycled, or recovered,
and finally disposed as a last option [60]. The Water Framework Directive (WFD)
establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters,
coastal waters and ground waters. Transitional waters are bodies of water in the vicinity
of river mouths, but influenced by freshwater, whereas coastal waters refer to waters
extending to one nautical mile from the nearest point of the baseline from which the
breadth of territorial waters are measured [61]. Under the Birds and Habitat directives
and Natura 2000, EU Member States establishes special protected areas, which make up
the Natura 2000 network. The directive covers the marine environments such as open
sea areas, estuaries (near ports), coastal lagoons and reefs. Once an area is selected as a
Natura 2000 site, Member States are required to develop management plans to ensure
the favourable status of natural habitats and population dynamics of species [62]. The
Environmental Liability Directive requires that when measureable damage occurs to the
affects to water quality, remedial measures must be taken in accordance with the
the environmental status of marine and coastal ecosystems with a link to socio-
economic activities, not all pressures which result from the shipping and ports sector are
addressed by EU regulations.
Transport Network (TEN-T) as well as the Marco Polo II programme. These aim to
assist the freight transport system and strengthen its environmental and economic
performance. Strategic goals and recommendations for the EUs maritime transport
performance of the shipping industry and that it should work towards the long-term
Organisation (IMO); ensuring that Member States achieve good environmental status,
MARPOL Annex VI to reduce sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides emissions from
ships; promoting alternative fuel solutions in ports such as the use of shore-side
The 2011 White Pater, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area also set a number
of goals for the maritime sector, such as developing and deploying new and sustainable
fuels and propulsion systems to ships to reduce CO2 emissions. The Roadmap also
regard, it aims to make greater use of more energy efficient modes therefore increasing
the efficiency of transport and infrastructure. This means shifting transport away from
road and air and towards rail and shipping by utilising information systems and market
based incentives as well shifting towards the full application of a user pays and polluter
pays principles for sector management [64]. This shows the contradicting nature of EU
policies, which aim for an increase in shipping and port activities while simultaneously
improving the environmental status of marine and coastal waters. It also shows that
underwater noise as well as ballast water, abrasion, shading and GHG emissions by
ships.
time, shipping and port activities lead to a number of direct and indirect pressures on
marine and coastal ecosystems caused by both regular operating activities as well
pressures, which may significantly impact other key socio-economic activities within
Europe. A wide number of mechanisms across multiple levels of governance regulate
shipping and port activities and their resulting environmental pressures. As both
benefits and negative impacts occur due to maritime transport, it is essential to protect
the environment without excessively restricting economic activity. This assessment has
identified several gaps where environmental issues are either entirely or partially
unaddressed by policy mechanisms: underwater noise, ballast water and greenhouse gas
environmental objectives, such as in the MSFD, and potentially have negative impacts
Though the impacts of underwater noise are recognised and discussed by the
IMO [65] and EU (in the MSFD), no mechanism exists by which to reduce or eliminate
the pressure. Additional research, especially in regard to temporal and spatial aspects,
pressures take place during shipping operations, the IMO should seek to address them.
Further, there is also a gap in policy in the case of ballast water and invasive
species. The BWM Convention has not yet been ratified. The EU Biodiversity Strategy
2020 and the MSFD consider the environmental impact of non-indigenous species but
do not regulate ships. EU Member States are encouraged to ratify the BWM Convention
[66] adopted in 2004, but as of writing this, it has only been ratified by France, the
Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, as well as Norway [67]. This issue should be
addressed as soon as possible, i.e. Member States should move to ratify the convention.
its own mechanisms to combat this environmental pressure if the IMO fails to develop
regulations. The EU has taken similar steps in the past, for example with the airline
industry. To date, market based measures, such as a CO2 levy, are at the heart of
discussions [68].
regulation. While little research has been conducted regarding these pressures, there is a
potential that these shipping and port activities impact the integrity of the seafloor [1].
Seafloor integrity is covered within the MSFD as an environmental pressure but specific
policies are lacking. In this regard, additional research is needed to more completely
understand the implications of anchoring and shading, as well as the potential impact of
policies. These issues could potentially be developed at the EU level, as this does not
The adoption of the AFS convention banning the use of antifouling paints which
use TBT means that it will need to be removed from ships hulls. The toxic waste will
most likely be produced and concentrated near shipyards. The IMO has developed a
guidance document for best practices for the removal of antifouling paints [69]. Yet,
several advanced techniques for TBT removal and treatment have also been developed
which could improve the removal of TBT from shipyard waste and the sediment
surrounding ports and harbours, reducing the environmental impact [33]. Advanced
techniques for the removal of antifouling paints should be explored to ensure that
contaminants in ports and harbour ecosystems are minimised, and potentially made
mandatory by EU regulation.
The health of marine and coastal ecosystems is highly dependent on the socio-
economic activities which depend on their resources and the mechanisms developed to
this respect, additional research should be conducted in order to determine whether the
policy gaps identified in this paper in regard to environmental pressures should be
European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine waters. Thanks to Andrew Reid
References
1. ABDULLA, A., and LINDEN, O., (eds) 2008, Maritime traffic effects on
biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: Review of impacts, priority areas and
mitigation measures. Malaga, Spain: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation.
184 pp.
2. HELCOM, 2010, Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea An integrated thematic
assessment on maritime activities and response to pollution at sea in the Baltic Sea
Region. Balt. Sea Envrion. Proc. No. 123.
3. KNIGHTS, A.M., KOSS, R.S., PAPADOPOULOU, N., COOPER L.H., and
ROBINSON, L.A., 2011, Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273)
Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management. University of
Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6, 165 pp.
4. BOWEN, R.E., and RILEY, C., 2003, Socio-economic indicators and integrated
coastal management. Ocean Coastal Management, 46, 299-312.
5. MILLENIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT, 2005, Global assessment reports,
Volume 1: current state and trends. Chapter 19: coastal systems. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
6. COSTANZA, R., and FARLEY, J., 2007, Ecological economics of coastal disasters:
introduction to the special issue. Ecological Economics, 63, 249-253.
7. LESTER, S.E., MCLEOD, K.L., TALLIS, H., RUCKELSHAUS, M., HALPERN,
B.S., LEVIN, P.S., CHAVEZ, F.P., POMEROY, C., MCCAY, B.J., COSTELLO,
C., GAINES, S.D., MACE, A.J., BARTH, J.A., FLUHARTY, D.L., and PARRISH
J.K, 2010, Science in support of ecosystem-based management for the US west
coast and beyond. Biological Conservation, 143, 576-587.
8. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2010, The European Environment,
State and Outlook 2010, Marine and Coastal Environment ISBN 978-92-9213-158-
6.
9. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2008, Communication from the Commission,
Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common principles in the EU
(COM(2008) 791 final) Brussels, 25.11.2008.
10. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2006, The Changing faces of Europes
coastal areas, EEA Report No 6/2006.
11. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2008, Shipping, Facts and figures on maritime
Europe.
12. POLICY RESEARCH CORPORATION, 2010, Study on the economic effects of
Maritime Spatial Planning, Final Report, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
13. DOUGLAS-WESTWOOD LIMITED, 2005, Marine industries global market
analysis, Marine Foresight Series No. 1, Marine Institute, Foras na Mara.
14. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, Study on EU Seafarers Employment, Final
Report, MOVE/C1/2010/148/SI2.588190.
15. EUROSTAT, 2012, Country level - Gross weight of goods handled in all ports (EU
27) Mar_mg_aa_cwh Country level Gross weight of goods handled in all ports.
16. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2010, European Commission - Energy and Transport
in Figures 2010, Part 3: Transport.
17. EUROSTAT, 2010, European port activity in 2009 hit by the general economic
crisis, Statistics in focus 65/2010, Transport.
18. EUROSTAT, 2012, Statistics explained, Maritime transport statistics short sea
shipping of goods,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Maritime_transport_s
tatistics_-_short_sea_shipping_of_goods .
19. GIULIANO, A., 2010, Eurostat, Transport, Short Sea Shipping of goods 2008, Data
in focus, 26/2010.
20. UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, 2009, UNEP/MAP-Plan
Bleu: State of the Environment and Development in the
Mediterranean,UNEP/MAP-Plan Bleu, Athens, 2009.
21. GIULIANO, A., 2010, Eurostat, Transport, European port activity in 2009 hit by the
general economic crisis, Statistics in focus 65/2010.
22. TRANSVISIONS, 2009, Study on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Year
Horizon, Service contract A2/78 2007 for the DG TREN, Copenhagen, Denmark.
23. ENEI, R. 2010, EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050? Annex to Task III Paper on
the EU transport demand: Freight trends and forecasts, March 2010.
24. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action
in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
25. DAISIE, 2010, Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe, Home,
http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.do .
26. GOLLASCH, S. 2006, Overview on introduced aquatic species in European
navigational and adjacent waters. Helgoland Marine Research 60, 84-89.
27. OSPAR, 2010, Quality Status Report 2010, OSPAR Commission, London 2010
ISBN 978-1-907390-38-8, Publication number 497 / 2010.
28. NELLEMANN, C., HAIN, S., ALDER, J. (Eds), 2008, In Dead Water Merging of
Climate Change with Pollution, Over-harvest, and Infestations in the Worlds
Fishing Grounds. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal,
Norway. p. 64.
29. KETTUNEN, M., GENOVESI, P., GOLLASCH, S., PAGAD, S., STARFINGER,
U., TEN BRINK, P., SHINE, C., 2008; Technical support to EU strategy on
invasive species (IAS) Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU
(Final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. p. 40 + annexes.
30. HELCOM, 2012, Emissions from ships,
http://www.helcom.fi/shipping/emissions/en_GB/emisions/ .
31. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2012, Transport Statistical pocketbook 2011,
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm .
32. THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OPERATIONS POLLUTION FEDERATION
LIMITED, 2010, http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-
statistics/statistics/#causes .
33. KOTRIKLA, A., 2008, Environmental management aspects for TBT antifouling
wastes from shipyards. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 77-85.
34. WURPEL, G., VAN DEN AKKER, J., PORS, J. and TEN WOLDE, A. 2011,
Plastics do not belong in the ocean, Towards a roadmap for a clean North Sea,
IMSA, Amsterdam.
35. COASTLEARN, 2005, Sustainable Tourism Module, The European Union
Programs Leonardo da Vinci / the Netherlands office and TACIS IBPP.
36. COENEN, R., 2000, Dredged material management global requirements and
guidance, Dredged Material in the Port of Rotterdam, Interface between Rhine
Catchment Area and North Sea, Workshop Report II, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
April, pp 8-10.
37. BARHAM, P., 2000, The Environment Agency of England and Wales and
dredging: local impacts and strategic planning, Dredged Material in the Port of
Rotterdam, Interface between Rhine Catchment Area and North Sea, Workshop
Report II, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, April, pp 23-27.
38. SLABBEKOORN H., BOUTON, N., VAN OPZEELAND, I., COERS, A., TEN
CATE, C., and POPPER, A.N, 2010, A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising
underwater sound levels on fish. Cel Press, 1243.
39. UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL, 2010, Human noise pollution in ocean can lead fish
away from good habitats and off to their death, ScienceDaily,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100803212015.htm .
40. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2011, Huge renewable energy growth
this decade, if EU countries meet projections,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/massive-renewable-energy-growth-this .
41. THOMSEN, F., LDEMANN, K., KAFEMANN, R., and PIPER, W., 2006, Effects
of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish, biola, Hamburg,
Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd.
42. EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY, 2012, Observing the earth, ESA map reveals
European shipping routes like never before,
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMBDI0OWUF_index_1.html .
43. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, 2012, International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-
Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-%28MARPOL%29.aspx .
44. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, 2012, Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Convention-on-
the-Prevention-of-Marine-Pollution-by-Dumping-of-Wastes-and-Other-Matter.aspx
.
45. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and EUROPEAN COUNCIL, European Parliament
and Council Regulation (782/2003) of 4 November 2003 on the prohibition of the
use of organotin compounds on ships. Official Journal L 115/1.
46. GIPPETH, L., 2008, The legal design of the international and European Union ban
on tributyltin antifouling paint: Direct and indirect effects. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90, 86-95.
47. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directive 95/21/EC EC, 1995. European Council
Directive (95/21/EC) of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of
shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of
the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control).
48. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANSIATION, 2012, International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments
(BWM)
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-
Convention-for-the-Control-and-Management-of-Ships%27-Ballast-Water-and-
Sediments-%28BWM%29.aspx .
49. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, 2012, IMO adopts important
guidelines to support implementation of mandatory energy efficiency measures for
international shipping, Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 63rd
session, 27 February to 2 March,
http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/09MEPC63ENDS.aspx.
50. TRANSPORT and ENVIRONMENT, 2012,
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/environmental-groups-welcome-imos-
energy-efficiency-standard-new-ship-call-further-actionsv.
51. OSPAR COMMISSION, 2012
http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00010100000000_000000_000000
.
52. HELSINKI COMMISSION, 2012, http://www.helcom.fi/helcom/en_GB/aboutus/ .
53. MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN, 2012,
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/seerecon/infrastructure/sectors/environmen
t/ri/mep.htm.
54. BLACK SEA COMMISSION, 2012, http://www.blacksea-
commission.org/main.asp .
55. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2007, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions, An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European
Union (COM 2007 574 final) Brussels, 10.10.2007.
56. EUROOPEAN COMMISSION, 2007, Communication from the Commission,
Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An Evaluation of Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe (COM(2007) 308 final) Brussels,
7.6.2007.
57. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2007, The DPSIR framework used by
the EEA http://root-
devel.ew.eea.europa.eu/ia2dec/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182 .
58. MEINER, A., 2009, Integrated maritime policy for the European Union
consolidating coastal and marine information to support maritime spatial planning.
Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14, 1-11.
59. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU
biodiversity strategy to 2020.
60. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,
OJ L 312/3 22.11.2008.
61. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy, JO L 327/1, 22.12.2000.
62. EUROPEAN COUNCIL, The Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural Habitats and of wild fauna and flora constitute the core
legislation on nature conservation in the Union.
63. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directive 2004/35/CE of 21 April 2004, OJ L 143/56
of 30.4.2004.
64. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European
Transport Area Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system
(COM(2011) 144 final) Brussels, 28.03.2011.
65. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, 2009, Noise from
Commercial Shipping and its Adverse Impacts on Marine Life, Report from the
Correspondence Group (MEPC59/19), April 09.
66. THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2011, General Secretariat, EU
Biodiversity Strategy 2020: towards implementation, 18862/11.
67. SEAS AT RISK, 2012, Status of Conventions as of 29 February 2012.
68. GREEN PORT, 2012, IMO versus EU on CO2 shipping emissions,
http://www.greenport.com/news101/products-and-services/tackling-co2-emissions-
of-shipping-at-international-level .
69. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, 2009, Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 and
its 1996 Protocol. Guidance on Best Management Practices for Removal of Anti-
Fouling Coatings from Ships, Including, TBT Hull Paints, Ref. T5/5.02, 2
November 2009.